Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
virtuoso:
"now i can share it with the world and spread the gospel" haha lots of people have seen that film/documentary in fact it has been in the top ten before. If you actually read what I said, I said at least that is what I think, personally I am not a big fan of religion but do think it is used as a scapegoat a lot. Of course people have killed othrs in the name of religion. However there is nothing wrong with someone having a faith a lot of religious people I have spoke to said it is as much a faith as anything else and who is anyone else to say well that is wrong. If elites didn't exist there would not be ransacking of economies, if elites did not exist hundreds of millions of of people would not live in an absolute poverty as a result, massive wars would not be waged, populations would not be enslaved, so what really is your point? Ohh I get it elites don't really exist, like the CFR didn't really exist, like the bilderbergs didn't really exist and anyone who said differently was a conspiracy theorist. Anyways watch the film and then I look forward to you remarking on how nuts the film is and the "small minority" of people that would actually believe it.
Ant:
--- Quote from: virtuoso on December 02, 2006, 04:40:23 AM ---If elites didn't exist there would not be ransacking of economies, if elites did not exist hundreds of millions of of people would not live in an absolute poverty as a result, massive wars would not be waged, populations would not be enslaved, so what really is your point? Ohh I get it elites don't really exist, like the CFR didn't really exist, like the bilderbergs didn't really exist and anyone who said differently was a conspiracy theorist. Anyways watch the film and then I look forward to you remarking on how nuts the film is and the "small minority" of people that would actually believe it.
--- End quote ---
The analogy you tried to make is inappropriate.
"Elites" is not well defined. Religion is defined. So we can't even argue your point because you're using a very vague idea to form you analogy.
Secondly there is another problem with your ideology. "Elites" and "religion" are not comparable concepts. For one, religion is a speculative idea while the existence of "elites" are an unavoidable part of life. We can't all be equal... anyone that is more intelligent, more accomplished, more anything will inevitably become an "elite."
But religion is much different. It's an avoidable idea. It's purely speculative, and since it's not real it could potentially cease to exist (or at least become a marginalized idea much like a belief in witches is marginalized). But you can't end humanity's tendency to stratify. Show me a society where everyone is the same and I'll concede this point.
Do you understand?
virtuoso:
I can never say for definite that God does not exist and nor can anyone much the same as anyone else can say there is undeniable truth god exists. The point about elites is true they have always existed but they are defined, or at least true elites are. The prime american example would be take a look at who is a CFR member or a regular bildaberg member, elsewhere the EU, Club of Rome the federal reserve for instance could be scrapped and there is still the executive order from Kennedy to begin this process, which proves it could be, As far as the European Union is concerned countries could pull out of the European Union but no the premier players in each respective government embrace these bodies. I take your point that yes there will always be elites but their power could feasibly be drastically reduced. Now as far as religion is concerned.... you can not deny that religion has sometimes been an obstacle to regimes also, it's one of these debates which has no definitive answers because I could cite the palestinians fight as being about oppression and just as legitimately you could cite the Israelis determination to reclaim the lands as a religious one. I guess this is the problem with discussing anything related to religion a lot of is belief, the point I was making and still do make is there have been a lot of positive messages used in scriptures. It's one of these issues that can make your head spin because there are so many valid points which can be made, however no there should not be controlling of religion. There is enough control of society already and it's a very dangerous road to head down, there is nothing righteous about this call for one religion either, something I have heard lots of times before, not that I am implying you are referring to an idea like that of course.
Ant:
If you want to "impose" your ideas on society - which you do. Then you need "elites." Altho I'm still not sure what you mean by the word. How do policies get passed, and governments managed without their existence.
If you took every "elite" and shot them tomorrow the world would be a very confused place. But maybe I'm wrong. I shouldn't comment that much when I'm not sure if we're even using the word in the same manner.
For example...
Is a business owner elite?
Is an academic elite?
If anyone with a net worth greater than 10 million elite?
Are all politicians elite?
Is anyone with an above average IQ elite?
Is anyone attending harvard elite?
Are religious leaders elite? Is the catholic pope?
Here is the actual definition by MW
Elite a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence.
By that definition all of the above are "elites."
---
Again, there is a very significant difference between the existence of "elites" and "religion." That being, you can't eliminate "elites" but you can eliminate "religion." This should be extremely obvious.
Also, your generalization of "elites" was inappropriate. This is obvious when you consider your own desire to be an "elite." You want to impose your own ideology on the world. This is another contradiction in your thinking. You essentially are supporting elitism. You want to be an elite and marginalize all other elites that don't share your same worldview.
But ironically you think yourself a libertarian. Specifically you said you are for the "protection of liberty," but this is not true. You support increasing freedoms for people you like, and decreasing freedoms for people you dislike. This is not libertarian thinking. This is why I say your thinking is littered with contradictions and assumptions.
To be consistent you have to make a choice:
1) Do you support the libertarian ideal of maximizing freedom?
2) Do you want to limit the freedom of people you dislike by restricting the right of "elites" to act as they please?
Of course choosing the latter makes no sense. This is because only elites can restrict the freedom of other elites. So if you choose option 2 you are essentially supporting totalitarianism. i.e. you want elites that feel the same as you do to have control...
The only consistent idea is to support the freedom of all types of elites, and non-elites to act freely. Now if you want to break this rule for your idea of supporting a "greater good" than freedom, that's fine. But you have to realize then that you are no longer supporting the true protection of liberty. Your supporting the belief that it's wise to sacrifices some freedoms for the "greater good."
virtuoso:
You just engaged in double think right there when trying to express that I am for less freedom of elites.....I am not for the complete centralisation and control over nation states by a group of unelected figures,,, i can see how that makes me anti liberty, I get it so when I am against total control I am an extremist its all becoming very clear to me.
Also when I said elite I meant the global elite, those people are intent on creating a one world centralised government where nationality nation state and local government are superfluous...again it's all becoming so clear to me now to be against this is extremist, that's not a dangerous world at all is it, I don't what I was thinking it's all wonderful, from now on I should suport this whole heartedly.
I understand now that the real problem of the soviet union was not the totalitarianism but it was those that opposed it, fucking criminals, and you can hardly blame the chinese government it's the people fighting it they are the enemy of freedom, they say they want freedom and yet they are against totalitarianism, why don't they embrace their freedom!
Now I have seen the light, thankyou so much there is no point in replying to any further posts from yourself because it all makes sense now, my heartfelt gratitude to you. Your logic might seem crazy to every person with an iota of sense but no not me i fully support what you are saying. There was me thinking that their driving philosophy is to see themselves as master and the citizen as the slave who has no inalieable rights and any rights they are given should be seen as a privilege from the high and mighty. This is illustrated in plain view by Leo Strauss for once but hey who gives a shit, if you are against this then you can't want liberty.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version